Evangelical leaders and conservative activists have a simple message for establishment Republicans about Mitt Romney’s failed presidential bid: We told you so.

After nearly two weeks of listening to GOP officials pledge to assert greater control over the party and its most strident voices in the wake of Romney’s loss, grass-roots activists have begun to fight back, saying that they are not to blame for the party’s losses in November.

“The moderates have had their candidate in 2008 and they had their candidate in 2012. And they got crushed in both elections. Now they tell us we have to keep moderating. If we do that, will we win?” said Bob Vander Plaats, president of the Family Leader. Vander Plaats is an influential Christian conservative who opposed Romney in the Iowa caucuses 10 months ago and opposed Sen. John McCain’s candidacy four years ago.

The conservative backlash sets up an internal fight for the direction of the Republican Party, as many top leaders in Washington have proposed moderating their views on citizenship for illegal immigrants, to appeal to Latino voters. In addition, many top GOP officials have called for softening the party’s rhetoric on social issues, following the embarrassing showing by Senate candidates who were routed after publicly musing about denying abortion services to women who had been raped.

Ted Cruz, a tea party favorite, trounced Texas’s establishment candidate in a primary on his way to becoming the second Hispanic Republican in the Senate, and the battle he waged in the Lone Star State epitomizes the fight between the two sides. Although he is considered a rising star with a personal biography that GOP leaders wish to promote, Cruz falls squarely in the camp that thinks Romney was not conservative enough and did not fully articulate a conservative contrast to President Obama, except during the first presidential debate.

“It was the one time we actually contested ideas, presented two viewpoints and directions for the country,” he said at the Federalist Society’s annual dinner in Washington. “And then, inevitably, there are these mandarins of politics, who give the voice: ‘Don’t show any contrasts. Don’t rock the boat.’ So by the third debate, I’m pretty certain Mitt Romney actually French-kissed Barack Obama.”

Rick Santorum, a former senator from Pennsylvania who finished second to Romney in the GOP primary, lampooned Romney’s assertion that Obama’s victory was fueled by “gifts” to core liberal constituencies in the form of legislative favors.

“The American people do not want ‘gifts’ from their leaders, particularly when these gifts leave a steep bill for our children to pay, but they do want us to be on their side,” Santorum wrote in a USA Today op-ed published Monday. He placed the blame on the national party, saying it lacked an appealing agenda: “We as a party, the party of Ronald Reagan and ‘Morning in America,’ failed to provide an agenda that shows we care.”

The dispute began to take shape soon after Obama was declared the winner and Republicans, who had hoped to claim the Senate majority, lost two seats. Two days after the election, House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) told ABC News that the Republicans’ mission was to appeal to nonwhite voters: “How do we speak to all Americans? You know, not just to people who look like us and act like us, but how do we speak to all Americans?”

The fight ahead will come in two phases, the first being legislative debates on taxes, entitlements and immigration, and the second in the GOP primary battles in the 2014 midterm elections.

Congressional Republican leaders have rejected Obama’s call for higher tax rates on the wealthiest Americans, but they have opened the door to more revenue streaming into the Treasury by limiting exemptions and closing loopholes as part of a broad tax-code overhaul. The president says those measures would not produce enough revenue.

More problematic for Republicans is the drift of Hispanic voters into the Democratic fold. Obama won among Hispanic voters by 44 percentage points this year, up eight points from 2008.

“Hispanics are an ever-important part of the electorate that can’t be ignored. The scope of the challenge is broad, but there is opportunity ahead for conservatives to engage,” Jennifer S. Korn of the Hispanic Leadership Network, a Republican-funded group designed to do outreach, wrote in a memo circulated over the weekend.

Korn warned that two reliably Republican states worth 49 electoral votes combined could become swing states if demographic trendlines continue. In 2004, George W. Bush tied in the Hispanic vote in Texas and lost in Arizona by 13 percentage points. Romney lost the Hispanic vote by more than 40 points in both states.

After several years of focusing on border security as the centerpiece of their immigration proposals, many senior party officials have reversed course and suggested that they should at least support the DREAM Act, which would allow the children of illegal immigrants to avoid deportation.

Such a move would spark a huge internal fight with some conservatives. Dan Stein, president of the hard-line Federation for American Immigration Reform, insisted that the 2012 election was decided on issues other than immigration and that the push for the party to change its position represents opportunism by those who have always favored a more accommodating approach. He said the party’s elite is captive to business interests who favor increased immigration to reduce labor costs.

“There’s no evidence, none, that amnesty will bond Hispanics to the Republican Party,” he said. “This post-election chatter is coming from people who, for the most part, have generally disagreed with the need for stronger border control or less immigration. . . . This is going to be a long, protracted debate.”

The 2014 Senate races will serve as a test for establishment control of the political process. For the third consecutive cycle, Republicans will begin as heavy favorites to gain a large bloc of seats, and some party leaders want a bigger role in choosing those nominees. In 2010 and 2012, Republicans say, bad nominees in Colorado, Delaware, Indiana, Missouri and Nevada cost them what should have been easy victories. If those seats were in GOP hands today, the Senate would be deadlocked at 50-50.

Some outside groups, however, stand ready to fight for the most conservative nominee, pointing to Cruz and Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) as examples of rising stars who won Senate races without establishment support.

“The party is rarely in a position to determine the best candidate,” said Chris Chocola, president of the Club for Growth. “When you have someone who can articulate a clear, convincing, conservative message, they win.”

This is precisely what I said would happen among the conservatives in the party.

Republicans seem to have no lack of understanding about how badly their presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, damaged the party brand by demonizing a good chunk of the electorate as “victims” and “gift” grabbers — the slothful masses who just can’t wait to take a government handout.The party faithful might also want to reconsider their recent demonization of one of their previous favorites, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, if they hope to recapture the heart of America. And have a better shot in the next presidential election.

The New York Times’ Michael Barbaro reported Tuesday on how the immensely likable, plain-talking governor remains persona non grata among GOP mainstays following the lost presidential election. His crime: suggesting that President Obama performed admirably in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy.

Make no mistake, Democrats would also be hounding one of their own who heaped praise on a Republican in the waning hours of a close presidential campaign. Imagine if California Gov. Jerry Brown had waited until late October to say he viewed Mitt Romney as a principled, post-partisan leader who could work with one and all. He would need a team of bodyguards to move safely in the deep-blue state Capitol.

But this is one of those moments when tried-and-true partisan hackery and the thoughts of average Americans diverge in a big way. The rapprochement between Obama and Christie — who praised the president’s Sandy response as “outstanding,” “incredibly supportive” and a “great credit” to leadership — pleased a lot of ordinary people. Exit polls found that roughly 1 in 4 voters called Obama’s response to the giant storm an “important factor” in their vote. Christie’s warm embrace of the president presumably went a long way toward affirming that Obama acted presidential, not political, during the crisis.

Christie may have been thinking about his own reelection prospects next year against Newark Mayor Cory Booker. So perhaps his motivations were not pure as the waves driven across the Atlantic City boardwalk. But most New Jerseyans will see his work with Obama through a positive lens. They won’t care why the two men worked together, just that they did.

That’s what even the most cynical and fatigued citizens expect political leaders to do during true crises — to put their differences aside (Christie had said not long prior to the storm that Obama flailed desperately to find the “light switch” of leadership) and get things done.

One need only go back to 2005 and the uneven to invisible response to Hurricane Katrina for a model of what Americans won’t abide. FEMA and the federal government, under Republican President George W. Bush, stalled in getting help to the residents of New Orleans.

Louisiana's governor at the time, Kathleen Babineaux Blanco, a Democrat, feuded with Bush. When federal aide arrived, her state moved too slowly to distribute it to its increasingly desperate citizens. Yet evidence emerged that the Republicans in Washington had sought to embarrass the Democrat and that the Bush administration moved more rapidly to help Republican-governed Mississippi.

In short, the Katrina response embarrassed most of those who came anywhere near it. Any politician paying attention should have learned that the overt politicization of tragedy does not amuse the victims. They tend not to forget. Gov. Christie internalized that lesson, especially after he got walloped in the press for being on vacation in Florida when a massive blizzard shut down his state in early 2011.

New Jerseyans surely appreciate that distinction. Republicans nationally would be wise to absorb it, too. The more they spurn their onetime favorite, Christie, the more they look like the party that just lost the last election by focusing on their own and shunning everyone else.

Call it irony or call it coincidence: Mitt Romney’s share of the popular vote in the 2012 presidential race is very likely to be 47 percent.

Romney’s campaign, of course, was doomed in large part by comments made on a hidden camera in which he suggested that 47 percent of the country was so reliant on government services that those people would never vote for him.

The words ’47 percent’ came to define what was already evident: that Romney struggled to connect with lower- and middle-income voters and with groups such as Latinos. And in the end, it looks like 47 percent also just happens to be the share of the vote that Romney will get.

The Washington Post’s Greg Sargent noted a few days ago that Romney was flirting with 47 percent, and now it appears to be happening.

According to the latest numbers tallied by David Wasserman of the Cook Political Report, President Obama has expanded his share of the popular vote to 50.8 percent, while Romney has fallen to 47.49 percent.

By virtue of rounding, Romney’s share of the popular vote will be recorded here and elsewhere as 47 percent, so long as it doesn’t rise above 47.5 percent again.

That seems unlikely. Wasserman projects that Romney’s vote share will actually head more toward 47 percent flat — 47.1 percent or 47.2 percent — because many of the outstanding ballots in the presidential race come from California and New York, which both voted for Obama by a large margin.

And Obama’s popular vote margin, in the end, is likely to be 51 percent to 47 percent.

David Axelrod Surprised by Romney Campaign’s Missed OpportunitiesObama’s top election strategist tells a Chicago audience he was surprised Mitt Romney’s team did not attack Obama more, stuck so narrowly with their base—and chose Paul Ryan for VP.by James Warren | November 27, 2012 4:45 AM EST

President Obama’s top reelection strategist conceded surprise Monday that Republican super PACS didn’t attack Obama far earlier, Mitt Romney didn’t invest much more in ground operations, and that the Republican nominee played narrowly to the party base in picking Rep. Paul Ryan as a running mate.

Offering a lengthy dissection of the campaign, David Axelrod told a Chicago audience that he was “a bit surprised that super PACS, which spent an unbelievable amount of money,” didn’t hit television and radio with anti-Obama ads until May.

“Our air defenses weren’t ready,” he said, alluding to his side’s early lack of resources. “They gave us a pass, for whatever reason.”

At the same time, he was surprised that a plausible, distinctly positive image of Romney as successful businessman was not central to Romney’s media strategy until late fall. In part he ascribed that to Romney’s “Faustian bargain” to get the Republican nomination and tacking far to the right while also unleashing a barrage of mostly negative ads against GOP primary rivals.

The Obama camp assumed that after Romney sewed up the nomination, he would offer that more upbeat aura in his ads. “They never did that,” Axelrod said at the evening gathering at the University of Chicago.

As for Ryan, Axelrod personally figured former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty would be the choice, possibly Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio. His doubts about Ryan were a function of tough-minded views on privatizing Social Security and making significant changes in Medicare.

And as for the Republicans’ field operation, their comparatively small investment played into the Democrats’ hands and was not forecast by Axelrod, either.

Axelrod’s comments to a large audience amounted to a postmortem on his final political campaign and a segue to his career’s next chapter, overseeing the university’s new Institute of Politics.

He conceived the notion of a future rival to Harvard’s Kennedy School, among other institutions, with an accent on undergraduate education; pitched the concept to Chicago and Northwestern University; cut a deal with his alma mater, and has assembled a solid staff to execute the initial vision, including fellowship and internship programs. For example, this past campaign’s plethora of polling, some both erroneous and influential, will be an early topic of examination, he revealed Monday.

The session itself touched a wide variety of topics, mostly involving the campaign and the state of American politics. It had its languid spots and one moment in which Axelrod came off as somewhat defensive, namely when asked about political consultants and negative ads “degrading the system,” as one student questioner put it.

While agreeing that the two campaigns were beneficiaries of ads that degraded the political process, he cited just one, by a pro-Obama PAC and not approved by the campaign, as an example. Other anti-Romney ads that some observers felt were unfair were not mentioned.

“This was a very tough election,” he said. “And we had to make a case as well.”

He asserted that the earliest Obama ads in battleground states were distinctly positive. But it became clear that “if we allowed Romney to be the hazy, local Chamber of Commerce president” in his ads, “that was not in our interest.” A barrage of harsh anti-Romney ads ensued early and, many observers contend, did irreparable damage to Romney even before he officially was the GOP nominee.

In the final days of the campaign, Axelrod told Fox's Chris Wallace that Romney was behind in battleground states.

As for the dramatic increase in super PAC dollars, Axelrod noted that Obama has underscored his own disagreement with the Supreme Court decision, known as Citizens United, which opened the floodgates. At the same time, “I would not advise the Democratic Party to lay down arms and get mowed over in the next campaign” by eschewing such support.

Axelrod was his frequent droll and insightful self at times, including when discussing his return to the White House one Saturday after he’d left his West Wing position. His purpose was to assist in writing jokes for Obama’s speech that evening at a Washington dinner.

One line he’d written made fun of Pawlenty by claiming his middle name was bin Laden. “That’s so hackneyed,” he recalled Obama saying. “That’s so yesterday.” Axelrod didn’t think what replaced his line was especially funny.

Little did he know that the poker-faced Obama had just approved the raid that would result in the killing of Osama bin Laden in a few hours. His boss didn’t think a bin Laden joke was appropriate. Thus, said Axelrod, “Obama knew he had ordered the mission. And if that hadn’t gone well, his political career was probably over.”

One subject of curiosity Monday was the president’s poor performance in the first presidential debate. Axelrod was asked by moderator Steve Edwards, a respected Chicago journalist now with the institute, as to his true feelings immediately after, and before he spoke to media at the debate.

“I was thinking, ‘Can’t somebody else do this?’”

But, as uninspired as Obama might have been, Axelrod was taken aback by “our friends in the media,” meaning the reaction of obvious ideological allies in the press.

“MSNBC was relentless that night. And Andrew Sullivan was on a suicide watch after that debate,” said Axelrod.

By and large, the Axelrod on display before his new constituency, students and academics, was the fellow long known to friends, colleagues and even professional rivals: a distinctly likable, self-questioning journalist turned political operative who has often led with his heart and will go down in history as perhaps the most important figure in Obama’s decision to run for president in 2008.

“He thought big in the same way Obama did; he had something to prove in the same way Obama did,” is how Obama biographer David Maraniss puts it. “They both had holes in their lives in different personal ways. Axe was able to connect him to power in a way that previous consultants could not, and they shared a sensibility of being outsiders who could play the inside game.”

The bond with Obama was ever clear Monday, as Axelrod reverently recited a litany of what he considers historic achievements that, in some cases (notably the auto industry bailouts and his health-care legislation), were acts that ran contrary to Axelrod polling on what he should do. As he’s said before, he was often glad Obama didn’t take his advice.

And, now, after once-unimaginable opportunities have come his way, including shepherding the rise of the first black president, meeting world leaders, and doing well financially while doing good professionally, he will change course, targeting students, not prospective voters. He’ll settle down at his alma mater and try to make a famously cerebral enclave a more high-profile and influential player in the contentious world of politics and policy he deems central to a democracy.

The chief strategist for the Republican’s campaign says sometimes losing is just losing.

Mitt Romney: A good man. The right fight.By Stuart Stevens

Stuart Stevens was the chief strategist for the Romney presidential campaign.

Over the years, one of the more troubling characteristics of the Democratic Party and the left in general has been a shortage of loyalty and an abundance of self-loathing. It would be a shame if we Republicans took a narrow presidential loss as a signal that those are traits we should emulate.

I appreciate that Mitt Romney was never a favorite of D.C.’s green-room crowd or, frankly, of many politicians. That’s why, a year ago, so few of those people thought that he would win the Republican nomination. But that was indicative not of any failing of Romney’s but of how out of touch so many were in Washington and in the professional political class. Nobody liked Romney except voters. What began in a small field in New Hampshire grew into a national movement. It wasn’t our campaign, it was Romney. He bested the competition in debates, and though he was behind almost every candidate in the GOP primary at one time or the other, he won the nomination and came very close to winning the presidency.

In doing so, he raised more money for the Republican Party than the party did. He trounced Barack Obama in debate. He defended the free-enterprise system and, more than any figure in recent history, drew attention to the moral case for free enterprise and conservative economics.

When much of what passes for a political intelligentsia these days predicted that the selection of Rep. Paul Ryan meant certain death on the third rail of Medicare and Social Security, Romney brought the fight to the Democrats and made the rational, persuasive case for entitlement reform that conservatives have so desperately needed. The nation listened, thought about it — and on Election Day, Romney carried seniors by a wide margin. It’s safe to say that the entitlement discussion will never be the same.

On Nov. 6, Romney carried the majority of every economic group except those with less than $50,000 a year in household income. That means he carried the majority of middle-class voters. While John McCain lost white voters younger than 30 by 10 points, Romney won those voters by seven points, a 17-point shift. Obama received 4½million fewer voters in 2012 than 2008, and Romney got more votes than McCain.

The Obama organization ran a great campaign. In my world, the definition of the better campaign is the one that wins.

But having been involved in three presidential races, two of which we won closely and one that we lost fairly closely, I know enough to know that we weren’t brilliant because Florida went our way in 2000 or enough Ohioans stuck with us in 2004. Nor are we idiots because we came a little more than 320,000 votes short of winning the electoral college in 2012. Losing is just losing. It’s not a mandate to throw out every idea that the candidate championed, and I would hope it’s not seen as an excuse to show disrespect for a good man who fought hard for values we admire.

In the debates and in sweeping rallies across the country, Romney captured the imagination of millions of Americans. He spoke for those who felt disconnected from the Obama vision of America. He handled the unequaled pressures of a campaign with a natural grace and good humor that contrasted sharply with the angry bitterness of his critics.

There was a time not so long ago when the problems of the Democratic Party revolved around being too liberal and too dependent on minorities. Obama turned those problems into advantages and rode that strategy to victory. But he was a charismatic African American president with a billion dollars, no primary and media that often felt morally conflicted about being critical. How easy is that to replicate?

Yes, the Republican Party has problems, but as we go forward, let’s remember that any party that captures the majority of the middle class must be doing something right. When Mitt Romney stood on stage with President Obama, it wasn’t about television ads or whiz-bang turnout technologies, it was about fundamental Republican ideas vs. fundamental Democratic ideas. It was about lower taxes or higher taxes, less government or more government, more freedom or less freedom. And Republican ideals — Mitt Romney — carried the day.

On Nov. 6, that wasn’t enough to win. But it was enough to make us proud and to build on for the future.

Nothing sounds lamer than a political strategist trying to explain why his candidate lost — while studiously avoiding the facts. Or a lot of responsibility. But that’s how Mitt Romney’s chief strategist Stuart Stevens sounded when he dropped an op-ed in the Washington Post Wednesday.

The world through Stuart’s Rearview Mirror glasses often looks different than, say, reality. Here’s a couple of examples:

Sez Stu: “I appreciate that Mitt Romney was never a favorite of D.C.’s green-room crowd or, frankly, of many politicians. That’s why, a year ago, so few of those people thought that he would win the Republican nomination.”

Uh, not really. According to a RealClearPolitics.com analysis of major polls on Nov. 28, 2011, Mitt and Newt Gingrich were in a virtual dead heat in the polls.

Sez Stu: “Nobody liked Romney except voters. What began in a small field in New Hampshire grew into a national movement. It wasn’t our campaign, it was Romney.”

Aren’t they interchangeable? And it sure helped that starting in Iowa, Mitt’s Super PAC — led by former Romneyites and funded by largely untraceable money — dropped millions on crushing TV ads to destroy pretenders to the throne.

But Stu’s money quote comes when he attributes the loss not just to Obama running a better campaign but, in part, to his race:

“There was a time not so long ago when the problems of the Democratic Party revolved around being too liberal and too dependent on minorities. Obama turned those problems into advantages and rode that strategy to victory. But he was a charismatic African American president with a billion dollars, no primary and media that often felt morally conflicted about being critical. How easy is that to replicate?”

No primary? True. But incumbents rarely have primary challenges. We’ll ignore the blame-the-media whine (Stuart didn’t blame media meanies when his candidate George W. Bush won TWICE.) He didn’t lose because of the “billion dollars,” either. The Romney camp wasn’t hurting for money.

The question for Stu: Please explain what the significance of being a “charismatic African-American” had to do with winning the presidency. Last we checked the interwebs, Obama was the first African-American — charismatic or not — to have won the office. Quick history reminder on the political “advantages” of being an African-American candidate: Obama was only the fifth black U.S. Senator. Ever.

Stu sez: “Romney carried the majority of every economic group except those with less than $50,000 a year in household income. That means he carried the majority of middle-class voters.”

And so, Stuart reasons that “Yes, the Republican Party has problems, but as we go forward, let’s remember that any party that captures the majority of the middle class must be doing something right.”

Wow.

So what do you call the party that loses the electoral college 332-206 and the popular vote by around 4 million?

You got to appreciate that Stuart had a lot of nice things to say about Romney — particularly his strong first debate performance. But really. The campaign, like all losing campaigns, made a lot of mistakes. Two words: Own it.

Meanwhile, Mitt will be at the White House Thursday for a private lunch with President Obama.

A guy named Mitt Romney had lunch with the president yesterday at the White House. Consequently, our nation is far from done seeing the words “Mitt Romney” splashed all over the goddamn place, because even after spending six long years in vain pursuit of the presidency, here he is—out and about once again, making us aware of his existence.

On election night, Romney was reportedly “shell-shocked” after learning he’d been resoundingly defeated. “Intellectually, I've felt we were going to win this and have felt that for some time,” the candidate had mused to campaign trail reporters aboard his private jet, mere hours before news agencies declared Barack Obama the victor. “But emotionally, just getting off the plane and …” Romney trailed off, then concluded: “Seeing people there cheering as they were connected emotionally with me—I not only think we're going to win intellectually, I feel it as well.”

He “felt” this despite the preponderance of crystal-clear polling data available for the world to view on the New York Times’ website, which projected a decisive loss and had for weeks. Romney chose instead to rely on his own perceived “emotional connection” to cheering supporters as the most authoritative predictor of election outcomes, which is an excellent metaphor for his campaign’s chronic refusal to acknowledge empirical reality.

Weeks later, the failed candidate should finally account for his wrongdoings—look in the mirror, own up to his most glaring bad actions and lies, and reckon with the public’s negative perception of him, instead of continuing to blame his loss on “gifts” Obama supposedly gave minorities. In other words, isn’t it time for Romney to do something truly drastic and redemptive? I think so. The solution is to embark on an “apology tour.”

The phrase “apology tour,” of course, refers to when Romney—in one of his many substance-free talking points—accused Obama of going around the world to genuflect before unfriendly foreign leaders and “apologize for America.” This was a charge that had percolated within the fever-dreaming fringes of the GOP, and emanated into the mainstream. No “apology tour” ever happened, of course, but Romney went on repeating the allegation till the bitter end. Given his interest in “apology tours,” here’s one the failed candidate might consider taking:

Stop 1: Washington, DCWhen the two men met in private yesterday, perhaps Romney took the opportunity to apologize for his decision in September to accuse Obama of “sympathizing” with Islamist radicals during a major diplomatic crisis. (As you might recall, in response to news that the American embassies in Egypt and Libya had been besieged, Romney issued a statement pronouncing that Obama was on the side of the US’s enemies.) Post-election reporting has revealed that at the time, Romney realized he’d leveled an erroneous charge—but he decided to press on with it anyway, for fear of how neoconservative hawks in the Republican Party might react if he changed course or showed indecisiveness. Incredibly, the next morning, when the deaths of the US ambassador to Libya and three other Americans were announced, Romney convened a press conference specifically to reiterate that line of criticism.

If Romney opted not to apologize for basically calling Obama a traitor, I imagine their lunch would be a little... tense.

Stop 2: Seaside Heights, New JerseyNext, Romney should head northeast for the New Jersey coastline. Any of the many areas wrecked by Superstorm Sandy would be an acceptable as an Apology Tour stop, but I personally recommend Seaside Heights, where the smell of gas spillage may still linger in some neglected coves.

Following the storm, Romney’s operation orchestrated a hasty, last-minute transformation of long-scheduled Ohio campaign rallies into fake “storm relief” events. Neither Romney nor Paul Ryan bothered to survey any of the affected areas; Sandy’s devastation was largely confined to solid “blue states,” and therefore it would have been strategically imprudent for Romney to visit those places when he could have been politicking in swing states. (By the way: Let’s get rid of the Electoral College already!) Upon arrival to the New Jersey barrier islands, Romney should be forewarned that the sight of storm surge-barraged neighborhoods and other miseries may come as a bit of a shock.

Stop 3: Trenton, New JerseyRomney should then head to Trenton, the state capitol, where he can apologize directly to Governor Chris Christie. Campaign operatives launched scurrilous attacks on Christie after he dared praise Obama for overseeing the federal government’s relatively competent response to a mammoth natural disaster. Funny how freely the fat jokes flowed on right-wing sites after they decided their former idol betrayed Team GOP. After all, it was only August when Christie proclaimed, to rapturous applause from the Republican National Convention, “Tonight, we are going to choose respect over love.”

If there’s one thing that made the GOP fume with hatred this election cycle, it was any sign of a fellow Republican expressing even the mildest support for Obama. Christie’s praise was therefore deemed not just unacceptable, but morally despicable. While New Jersey residents shivered in the wet darkness, members of Romney’s operation saw fit to anonymously leak their “sour grapes” to every campaign hack’s favorite tabloid, POLITICO—which of course gleefully egged on the saucy intra-party feud. Weeks later, major Romney donors are still whining about Christie’s kind words for Obama having been some kind of “game-changer,” and they blame Governor Wrecking Ball (as he was once more commonly known) for handing re-election to Obama. Mitt will probably understand why he should apologize to Chris for this nonsense when he observes firsthand the wreckage on the coast.

Stop 4: LondonRomney—who endlessly touted his “rescue” of the Salt Lake City 2002 Winter Olympics—should return to the UK to repent for his previous trip there this summer, during which he bashed the City of London’s Olympics preparations for no reason—though the rebuke delivered by Mayor Boris Johnson was enjoyable. Eh, on second thought—screw the Olympics. Mitt can insult annoying gymnasts all he wants.

Stop 5: Salt Lake City, UtahHere, Romney is advised to seek forgiveness from the hierarchy of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. As president of the Church’s Boston stake from 1986 to 1994, he established strong ties to top church officials; in January 2008, Romney suspended his first failed presidential campaign to attend the funeral of church president and “prophet” Gordon B. Hinckley, described by USA Today as Mitt’s personal “spiritual leader.” How well did he carry out his duties as a global representative of the faith?

Well, the LDS ought to consider casting judgement on Romney’s partnership with conspiracy hate websites like Breitbart.com, which churns out a daily avalanche of wild, resentment-filled invective under the guise of “news.” Breitbart readers include many folks who still harbor big questions about Obama’s “background,” incriminating past “associations” that have yet to be uncovered, and the like. Few will relent on their demand that Obama release his undergraduate college transcripts, as he eventually did his long-form birth certificate.

While in Salt Lake, Romney is advised to apologize for his cynical prevarications about LDS doctrine. When prompted, he’d typically offer only generic platitudes on “Judeo-Christian values.” Fortunately for Romney, national political media generally agreed that adversarial questions regarding Mormonism were impolite and therefore not to be asked, so it never became a major general election campaign issue. (Members of the national political media also have a lot to apologize for)

Stop 6: Lake Jackson, TexasOne of Ron Paul’s two district offices is located in Lake Jackson, and it’s being packed up. At age 77, the iconoclast is retiring from Congress on January 3, having opted not to seek a 14th term in office. Ron Paul was personally cordial with Mitt Romney throughout the 2008 and 2012 presidential primaries and they appeared together in dozens of televised debates. But the Romney operation and GOP “establishment” decided to sandbag his supporters anyway, shocking even some in the Ron Paul apparatus who hoped for reconciliation with party power brokers. At the RNC, fervid Ron Paul cadres adopted “Remember Maine” as a rallying cry after part of the Maine delegation was arbitrarily blocked from being seated, prompting a mini-uprising on the floor.

Romney campaign spokespeople would occasionally make overtures geared toward appeasing Ron Paul people, but on the issue that most animates Ron Paul himself—non-interventionist foreign policy—Romney was horrendous, far worse in his sabre-rattling and war-mongering than Barack Obama and perhaps even George W. Bush.

As if by karmic law, Ron Paul will ultimately get the last laugh. His peculiar advocacy engendered a powerful, decentralized grassroots movement and aroused political consciousness for a very unorthodox assortment of young people, many of whom first became aware of Ron Paul by watching YouTube clips of his debate performances. Paul’s supporters typically feel great personal affection for the man. By contrast, Romney almost never inspired any such feelings, except maybe among his former colleagues in the private equity business.

Stop 7: Grand Rapids, MichiganThis will be Romney’s final stop; his home state, where his father served as governor and where last spring he declared admiration for the fine vegetation: “The trees are the right height.” In Grand Rapids, Romney is advised to deliver his last remarks and then withdraw peacefully from the public arena forever.

First, Romney should apologize for subjecting innocent Americans to repeated renditions of the song “Born Free” by Kid Rock, one of his most prominent surrogates on the campaign trail (other prominent surrogates included Meatloaf, Pat Robertson, and Donald Trump). Second, he’ll apologize for signing a pledge to support a Constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage and nullify all existing marriages in states that recognize them. Third, he’ll apologize for suggesting that the federal government ought to make things so hard on undocumented immigrants that they’ll voluntarily “self-deport” in order to escape the suffering.

Upon successful completion of this proposed Apology Tour, Romney will have done his part to put America back on the right track. Good luck, Governor.

BOSTON (AP) — Mitt Romney's shadow looms over a Republican Party in disarray.

The face of the GOP for much of the last year, the failed presidential candidate has been a virtual ghost since his defeat Nov. 6. He has quietly weathered the fallout of the campaign from the seclusion of his Southern California home, emerging only momentarily for a private lunch at the White House with President Barack Obama on Thursday.

His loss and immediate withdrawal from politics, while welcomed by most, has created a leadership vacuum within his party. It's left the GOP rudderless, lacking an overarching agenda and mired in infighting, with competing visions for the way ahead, during what may be the most important policy debate in a generation.

In his final meeting with campaign staffers at his Boston headquarters, Romney promised to remain "a strong voice for the party," according to those in attendance. But so far he has offered little to the Capitol Hill negotiations over potential tax increases and entitlement program changes that could affect virtually every American.

He declined to comment on the Treasury Department's recent refusal to declare China a currency manipulator, which was one of his signature issues over the past 18 months. He made no public remarks after his meeting with Obama, quickly fading away, again.

"If I had to tell you somebody who is the leader of the party right now, I couldn't," said Amy Kremer, chairman of the Tea Party Express, which is among the conservative factions vying for increased influence. "There's a void right now."

There's no shortage of Republicans maneuvering to fill it, from House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio to a number of high-profile politicians looking to boost their national profiles, if not position themselves for a 2016 presidential run. That group could include former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, son and brother of presidents, and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.

Republican officials acknowledge party tensions between the moderate and conservative wings, as well as the tea party and evangelical constituencies. But they dismiss the leadership vacuum as a standard political reality for the losing party in the presidential race. Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, never had a strong relationship with the conservative base, given his more moderate past.

Party officials are optimistic that a team of younger and more diverse leaders, drawn from the ranks of governors and Congress, will emerge in the coming months to help strengthen and unify what is now a party grappling with its identity. That list includes Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, and Govs. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Nikki Haley of South Carolina.

The GOP was in disarray following its 2006 showing, searching for a new path and leader at a time when President George W. Bush was deeply unpopular.

Arizona Sen. John McCain, the 2008 presidential nominee, briefly assumed control of a party that he long had criticized, but it never really warmed to him. He lost to Obama, and shortly after that, the party turned to an African-American official, Michael Steele, to serve as its chief spokesman. But the decision was widely seen as a mistake, as Steele, a former Maryland lieutenant governor, presided over major financial problems as head of the Republican National Committee.

All that created a leadership vacuum that helped give rise to the tea party movement in 2009 and sparked rounds of internal battles between party pragmatists and more extreme conservatives.

Republican strategist Phil Musser is among those suggesting that the current void presents a breakout opportunity for the party chairman, Reince Priebus. The 40-year-old Midwesterner largely played a supporting administrative role in his first two years on the job.

"To some degree it's a challenge in as much you don't have a standard bearer to rally behind that unifies central themes of the conservative movement," Musser said. "The bottom line is that a little bit of messiness and frank family discussion is not a terrible thing after an election like this."

But Democrats are emboldened, both by their Election Day successes and the subsequent Republican discord.

GOP factions are fighting over multiple issues: the "fiscal cliff," which will dominate the debate on Capitol Hill at least through the end of the year; blame for Romney's defeat; and how to appeal to a shifting and more diverse electorate and unify its message.The party's most passionate voters are reluctant to abandon hard-line immigration policies that have dominated their thinking for years. But Washington-based strategists describe a dire need to win over more Hispanic voters and other minorities who overwhelmingly supported Obama in the swing states that decided the election.

At the same time, rank-and-file Republicans on Capitol Hill are struggling to coalesce behind a single message during fiscal cliff negotiations that have exposed a new rift with fiscal conservative guru Grover Norquist and his anti-tax pledge.

There's also evidence that the fight isn't over between the conservative and pragmatic wings of the party in Senate primaries.Conservatives wasted little time signaling that they would work to defeat Shelley Moore Capito, a popular congresswoman from a storied West Virginia political family, as she seeks the nomination for the chance to challenge Democratic Sen. Jay Rockefeller in 2014. Within an hour of Capito's announcing her candidacy, the deep-pocketed conservative Club for Growth branded her as the "establishment candidate" whose record in Congress of supporting prominent bailouts has led to bigger government.Democrats already are working to exploit the GOP divisions to strengthen their own political standing.

Obama has taken his party's message directly to voters. He visited a Pennsylvania toy manufacturer on Friday, calling for Republicans to embrace the immediate extension of tax cuts for all but the top 2 percent of wealthiest Americans.

Though Boehner has taken the lead in negotiations with the White House, Republicans generally did not have a standard-bearer to counter that message. Instead, they're relying on familiar Capitol Hill leaders to guide party doctrine during his debate.

"We don't have one person out there carrying that torch. You'll have (South Carolina Sen.) Lindsey Graham, Speaker Boehner, (Wisconsin Rep.) Paul Ryan, John McCain — same old, same old," said Republican strategist Hogan Gidley, a senior official on former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum's unsuccessful presidential bid. "Void of a singular leader, we're going to have to rely on some of the younger more dynamic speakers to go out and make our argument."

No one, it seems, is talking about Romney assuming any sort of leadership role.

"I don't think that we need to be looking toward Mitt Romney to articulate our principles," said Jenny Beth Martin, co-founder and national coordinator for the Tea Party Patriots.

It appears Romney may cooperate, choosing business over politics in defeat.

The former businessman is subletting office space at the Boston-area venture capital firm, Solamere Capital, which was founded by his oldest son. Former aides expect Romney to stay out of the spotlight for the foreseeable future — spending colder months at his California home and warmer months at his New Hampshire lake house.

"It might be better for him, better for the party, to start fresh," Gidley said.

SAN DIEGO — The man who planned to be president wakes up each morning now without a plan.

Mitt Romney looks out the windows of his beach house here in La Jolla, a moneyed and pristine enclave of San Diego, at noisy construction workers fixing up his next-door neighbor’s home, sending out regular updates on the renovation. He devours news from 2,600 miles away in Washington about the “fiscal cliff” negotiations, shaking his head and wondering what if.

Gone are the minute-by-minute schedules and the swarm of Secret Service agents. There’s no aide to make his peanut-butter-and-honey sandwiches. Romney hangs around the house, sometimes alone, pecking away at his iPad and e-mailing his CEO buddies who have been swooping in and out of La Jolla to visit. He wrote to one who’s having a liver transplant soon: “I’ll change your bedpan, take you back and forth to treatment.”

It’s not what Romney imagined he would be doing as the new year approaches.

Four weeks after losing a presidential election he was convinced he would win, Romney’s rapid retreat into seclusion has been marked by repressed emotions, second-guessing and, perhaps for the first time in the overachiever’s adult life, sustained boredom, according to interviews with more than a dozen of Romney’s closest friends and advisers.

“Is he disappointed? Of course he’s disappointed. He’s like 41,” adviser Ron Kaufman said, referring to former president George H.W. Bush. “Forty-one would hate to lose a game of horseshoes to the gardener in the White House, and Mitt hates to lose. He’s a born competitor.”

The defeated Republican nominee has practically disappeared from public view since his loss, exhibiting the same detachment that made it so difficult for him to connect with the body politic through six years of running for president. He has made no public comments since his concession speech in the early hours of Nov. 7 and avoided the press last week during a private lunch with President Obama at the White House. Through an aide, Romney declined an interview request for this story.

After Romney told his wealthy donors that he blamed his loss on “gifts” Obama gave to minority groups, his functionaries were unrepentant and Republican luminaries effectively cast him out. Few of the policy ideas he promoted are even being discussed in Washington.

“Nothing so unbecame his campaign as his manner of leaving it,” said Robert Shrum, a senior strategist on Democratic presidential campaigns. “I don’t think he’ll ever be a significant figure in public life again.”

Yet friends insist Romney is not bitter. Bitterness, said one member of the family, “is not in the Romney genetic code.”

One longtime counselor contrasted Romney with former vice president Al Gore, whose weight gain and beard became a symbol of grievance over his 2000 loss. “You won’t see heavyset, haggard Mitt,” he said. Friends say a snapshot-gone-viral showing a disheveled Romney pumping gas is just how he looks without a suit on his frame or gel in his hair.

“He’s not a poor loser,” said John Miller, a meatpacking magnate who co-chaired Romney’s finance committee and owns the beach house next door. “He’s not crying on anybody’s shoulders. He’s not blaming anybody. . . . He’s doing a lot of personal introspection about the whole process — and I’m not even sure that’s healthy. There’s nothing you can do about it now.”

By all accounts, the past month has been most difficult on Romney’s wife, Ann, who friends said believed up until the end that ascending to the White House was their destiny. They said she has been crying in private and trying to get back to riding her horses.

Romney has been keeping in shape with bike rides around La Jolla, past the bistros and boutiques that hug the rugged coastline. The son of Detroit — who boasted of the Cadillacs he owned as a sign of support for the U.S. auto industry during the campaign — was spotted driving a new black Audi Q7, a luxury sport-utility vehicle manufactured in Slovakia.

Over Thanksgiving, one of Romney’s five sons, Josh, his wife and their four children packed into a single bedroom at the Spanish-style villa on Dunemere Drive here. One friend said they ordered their turkey dinner from Boston Market, the home-style restaurant chain, because there were too many kids running around the house to bother with cooking a feast.

That big renovation to transform the Romney beach house into an 11,000-square-foot manse complete with a car elevator? It hasn’t begun yet.

Romney also is plotting his next career steps — a return to business, perhaps, or something in the charitable realm or with the Mormon Church, said friends who have discussed possibilities with him. He kept a diary on the campaign trail and is considering writing a book.

“He’s a very vibrant, young 65-year-old. He looks 55 and acts 45,” Kaufman said. “He’s got a lot of life left in him.”

Romney has ruled out running for another office, adviser Eric Fehrnstrom said. Still, he doesn’t plan to recede completely from public life. “He’ll be involved in some fashion because that’s the commitment of his family to public service,” Fehrnstrom said.

After Romney’s father, George, lost his 1968 presidential race and finished serving in President Richard M. Nixon’s Cabinet, he ran a national nonprofit organization that advocated volunteerism. Friends said Romney has mentioned the Clinton Global Initiative as a model he might replicate.

Unlike the last two unsuccessful nominees, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), Romney had no job waiting for him. His public platform fell out from under him on election night.

“That transition, to happen so fast — it’s got to be hard. He doesn’t talk about it or really show it, but I know it’s got to be painful,” said L.E. Simmons, an oil investor and close friend who visited the Romneys here the Friday after Thanksgiving.

In private, Romney has told friends he has little interest in helping the Republican Party rebuild and re-brand itself.

Advisers also said he felt no need to explain himself after his comments to donors about Obama using the power of incumbency to give “gifts” to female, black and Latino voters leaked into the public sphere. One adviser said Romney regretted the remarks “coming out the way it did.” Fehrnstrom, meanwhile, said, “He was expressing the frustration that any challenger would feel about an incumbent who used the powers of his incumbency — as we would have if the shoe was on the other foot.”

Romney relied heavily on like-minded millionaires such as Simmons to raise more than $1 billion during the campaign, and he has been calling many of them to thank them individually for their help. Last week, he called Jet Blue Airways Chairman Joel Peterson, an old friend.

“He just said, ‘I’m sorry I let you guys down,’ ” Peterson said. “He sounded really calm, upbeat, warm. There was no anger or sense of defensiveness or anything.”

So far, however, Romney hasn’t called up some supporters who contributed in other ways.

For years, as he competed for the affections of GOP activists in Iowa, Romney called Joni Scotter over and over again— on her birthdays, on her 50th wedding anniversary. When Scotter’s husband died this spring, Romney had white roses and lilies delivered to her.

Scotter said she hasn’t heard from Romney since he lost Iowa on Nov. 6.

“He hasn’t called,” she said. “I know they’re moving to California . . . so he’s doing his very best to stand back.”

On Nov. 15, his last night in Boston before jetting west, Romney rented out Il Casale, an Italian restaurant whose owner is a friend, for about 30 top advisers and staffers.

According to one aide, as everyone went around the dinner table sharing stories, Romney told the group, “Even though I don’t always show it, I’m very emotionally attached to you, as if you were all part of my family, and I’m going to miss you all.”

Friends said Romney plans to reside mostly in La Jolla during the colder months and in Wolfeboro, N.H., where he has a lakefront compound, during the warmer months. But he will maintain his official residency in Massachusetts.

Romney will keep a small office in Boston — he is subletting the space from Solamere Capital, the private-equity firm founded by his eldest son, Tagg, and his campaign’s finance chairman, Spencer Zwick — where his only remaining aide, assistant Kelli Harrison, will manage his affairs.

Romney has personally helped his out-of-work staffers land new jobs, holding office hours inside the campaign headquarters for anyone who wanted his counsel. Campaign chairman Bob White created an internal résumébank and marshaled the vast donor network to help.

Here in California, there is still some joy, friends say. A photo surfaced before Thanksgiving showing a grinning Romney riding a roller coaster during a visit with his grandkids to Disneyland.

Romney also wrote to Miller, who has been out of town, that his La Jolla neighbor’s house was “a mess” from an ongoing renovation project and that “nobody was working.”